Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court held that mere failure to disclose assets in the affidavit, if it does not constitute a material defect and is not of a substantial character, will not make the acceptance of the nomination improper, thus invalidating the election.

Such a failure will not amount to a corrupt practice as per Section 123 of the Representative of People's Act, 1951 (“RPA”) to render an election result void as per Section 100(1)(b).

Holding so, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the election of the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (“BRS”) MLA Kova Laxmi who was elected from Asifabad constituency of Telangana Legislative Assembly Elections, 2023.

Upholding Laxmi's election, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed against the Telangana High Court's decision, which refused to interfere with Kova Luxmi's elections.

Kova Laxmi had disclosed her assets, liabilities, PAN, and sources of income (honorarium as Zilla Parishad Chairperson). She also submitted IT returns for 2022–23 but recorded "Nil" income for previous years, i.e., 2018 to 2022.

It was alleged by the Appellant-Ajmera Shyam that the omission to reveal her income details as per Form 26 affidavit amounted to improper acceptance of nomination and corrupt practice under Section 100 of the RPA, for which her election is liable to be set aside.

Rejecting the Appellant's contention, Justice NK Singh in a detailed judgment observed that though Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 requires candidates to file Form 26 affidavits disclosing assets, liabilities, and IT returns of the past five years, the non-disclosure of the same would not be a substantial defect so as to declare the election as void on the grounds of corrupt practices.

“disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification is concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non-compliances that are not of substantial character, and should not be the basis for nullification of the people's mandate.”, the Court said

“the defect of non-disclosure mentioned is not of a substantial nature, for the same reason the Respondent No.1 cannot be considered to have indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act, and thus, the election of Respondent No.1 cannot be rendered void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act.”, the court held.

The Court noted that in Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors. (2018), it was held that if it is found that there has been non-disclosure of assets, it can amount to a corrupt practice. However, as regards the present case, it observed:

"the non-disclosure of income as per Income Tax Return in the present case, as discussed above, is not of a substantial nature to be considered a corrupt practice."

The Court noted that the lapse to not file the IT returns for earlier years did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) RPA, “unless it is shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result.”

"We are, thus, of the view that merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and fastidious approach, unless it is shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result.", the Court said.

Reference was also made to the recent decision in Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang which held that every non-disclosure will not affect the validity of the election unless it is shown to be of a material nature.

"The true test, in our opinion, would be whether the non-disclosure of information about assets in any case is of consequential or inconsequential import, finding of which will be the basis for declaring the election valid or void as the case may be," the Court said.

Non-Disclosure Of Criminal History Can Nullify Election, Not Assets or Education Details

The Court added that non-disclosure of criminal antecedents is a critical element in an election process and forms a substantial defect, however non-disclosure of assets and educational qualification cannot be said to be substantial defect to render the election void in the absence of evidence proving that such a non-disclosure influenced election results.

“the Court has made a subtle distinction between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and that of assets and educational qualifications. While disclosure of criminal antecedents in the electoral process was the most critical element to maintain the purity of the electoral process which has to be scrupulously adhered to, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications were considered as attending supplementary requirements to strengthen the electoral process, of which there will be certain scope for consideration as to whether it is of substantial or inconsequential nature.”, the Court said.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the candidate had otherwise mentioned in the affidavit that she was serving as the the Zilla Parishad Chairperson, drawing honorarium. Nerely because the honorarium amount was not explicitly mentioned, it does not constitute concealment.

Regarding the failure to show income in the IT returs of the four preceding years, the Court noted that her assets were otherwise declared.

"As long as the assets, income, and sources of income are otherwise disclosed, and if there is no dispute of the same, non-disclosure of the tax return for certain financial years, although a technical defect under the rules, in our opinion cannot be considered to be a defect of significant importance as it does not in any manner amount to hiding the assets. What has not been disclosed in the form of Income Tax Returns is certain information relating to assets and not “of assets”, as there was full disclosure of her assets and source of income," the Court observed.

Unless it is shown that the assets and income during the other financial years were substantially in variance and these were not disclosed, not much grievance can be made by the election petitioner, the Court said. Since the petitioner did not have such a case, the Court held that the election petition was devoid of merits.

Cause Title: AJMERA SHYAM VERSUS SMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Rajendran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. (NP) Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jayapal Reddy, Adv. Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv.